Hi, On Sun, 15 May 2011, Russ Allbery wrote: > I'm probably just reading a bit too much finality into "next version of > dpkg (1.16.1) will keep," but it can be a bit off-putting to get the > feeling that dpkg's source code is authoritative for the meaning of > Policy-standardized fields and the rest of the project is expected to get > in line without any other discussion. I think it creates some unnecessary > tension that the above order would have defused.
Well, it was not meant to override the normal process, but I expected it would not create problems so I did it all at once. But you're entirely entitled to mark the lintian bug as blocked by the policy one (that's why I mentioned that I was filing a policy one in parallel). > (I suspect that this ordering may be due to slowness in action on Policy > bugs, which I know has been a source of frustration for some of your > work. If you have a moment to come up with a list of Policy bugs that you > find particularly vexing and would like to get resolved, particularly if > any of them are relatively straightforward, could you send me that list? > I have more time right now to work on Policy than I have in quite a while, > and I promise to take a look. dpkg-buildflags is already high on my list, > for example.) Oh no, I'm not frustrated at all. On the contrary, I know that a bug with a good rationale and a good patch can be quickly seconded and merged, and thus it was more efficient to do everything at once. Cheers, -- Raphaël Hertzog ◈ Debian Developer Follow my Debian News ▶ http://RaphaelHertzog.com (English) ▶ http://RaphaelHertzog.fr (Français) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
